Global warming discussion III

[macdoc]

IN addition...what "changing sunlight"?....

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm

 

[Reality Check]

http://www.theglobalwarmingwar.com/

Synopsis

Diving into climate-science with in depth interviews from climatologists, meteorologists, physicists, authors, and political strategists, "The Global Warming War" sets a new precedent of actual scientific information in the heated debate about our planet's climate.

Not motivated by political bias, money, or emotionalism the film looks to find the facts from the experts who spend their lives studying Earth's climate and not politicians with ulterior motivations. With a never before seen interview from physicist and expert in the field of climatology, Dr. Henrik Svensmark, “The Global Warming War” introduces his Cosmic Ray Theory that may just be the factor unaccounted for by political organizations, that plays a very important role in our planet's climate

I am skeptical.
Hyping the debate as "heated" is just wrong - the debate is essentially settled since 97% of climate scientists agree that AGW is happening.
Emphasizing a dubious theory from Svensmark is not good.
What's the link between cosmic rays and climate change?

Hypothetically, an increasing solar magnetic field could deflect galactic cosmic rays, which hypothetically seed low-level clouds, thus decreasing the Earth's reflectivity and causing global warming. However, it turns out that none of these hypotheticals are occurring in reality, and if cosmic rays were able to influence global temperatures, they would be having a cooling effect.

 

[r-j]

Next thing you know, somebody will publish a paper that blames the changing sunlight from cosmic cycles for climate change.

It's funny how some people can't read what is right there on the page.

Sunlight comes from cosmic cycles? That's news.

People believe the strangest things.

During a highly elliptical orbit, the Earth would receive 20 to 30% higher sunlight intensity between its closest and furthest passes by Earth, "resulting in a substantially different climate from what we experience today," according to NASA.
The pull of every celestial body combines to create Earth's eccentricity, wobble, and tilt. These movements determine how our planet is positioned to receive sunlight and how much sunlight it can receive. Which of these is the dominant determiner of ice ages, however, is still not completely understood.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/cosmos-explanation-of-earths-ice-ages-2014-5#ixzz3C75OOxna
​

 

[r-j]

I am skeptical.

Yep. Nothing says "skeptic" like deciding something is nonsense before you see it. Science is not about new ideas and discoveries, it's about what the majority believes.

 

[Reality Check]

Yep. Nothing says "skeptic" like deciding something is nonsense before you see it. .

No, r-j. Nothing says "wrong" like imagining that I called the film nonsense when I did not call the film nonsense !

Skeptical is thinking about what information is given you skeptically :

I am skeptical.
Hyping the debate as "heated" is just wrong - the debate is essentially settled since 97% of climate scientists agree that AGW is happening.
Emphasizing a dubious theory from Svensmark is not good.
What's the link between cosmic rays and climate change?

There is no "heated" debate among climate scientists, r-j.
There is no credible evidence to support Svensmark's theory (in fact facts support cooling rather than warming!), r-j.
This makes me skeptical about the contents of the film. I may be pleasantly surprised by seeing valid science presented in the film. The synopsis may just be a advertisement blurb.

 

[macdoc]

Of course the moon could be made of green cheese ...do consider those raving about it...

•••••
counterpunch

The UN is on a hyperbole roll....

United Nations predicts climate hell in 2050 with imagined weather forecasts
'Reports from the future' warn of floods, storms and searing heat in campaign for climate change summit

Reuters
The Guardian, Monday 1 September 2014 19.18 BST

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/01/un-weather-forecasts-2050-climate-change-floods-drought

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hbne3q9Xers

Polemics writ large....

 

[Mikemcc]

What is up with this cosmic ray nonsense? Next thing you k now, somebody will publish a paper that blames the changing sunlight from cosmic cycles for climate change.

Seriously, do we have to go another round of oddball, obscure, discredited theories to get back to the discussion that we should be having, which is what can we do to mitigate and adapt to climate change?

Two days ago I drove down by Point Pleasant down to Atlantic City. The area is depressing in a number of ways. That the beach has been raised and seeded with grasses for mile after mile without thought of sea gates in the Dutch tradition. No use defending from one direction when it could hit you from the other! Some folks clearly recognise the issue by raising their property on 6 foot stilts but overwhelmingly most property owners are just hoping Sandy never happens again. There were many plots where the original properties had been bulldozed and clear and have now been abandoned, the elaborate roadside walls still remain but he plots are cleared.

There are many areas that will need to be abandoned in the next 100 years unless massively expensive sea defences are built - In the US that includes large areas of Florida, Louisiana, and the Bay Area flat lands, in the UK that could include significant areas of the Norfolk Broads, the Fens, and the Somerset Levels. God help the Dutch! Even areas like London are vulnerable to Sandy-like devastation if floods exceed the capability of the Barrier.

 

[Lennart Hyland]

The few minutes I saw of the film there were the usual "it was warmer before!" and some cherrypicking of graphs. But if someone is interested just PM me

 

[macdoc]

Let the failed memes lie buried.

 

[DC]

It's funny how some people can't read what is right there on the page. People believe the strangest things.
[/COLOR]

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/cosmos-explanation-of-earths-ice-ages-2014-5#ixzz3C75OOxna
​

businessinsider

 

[macdoc]

Nothing wrong with the article...no idea what RJ is on about as usual.

Human-induced warming is sending Earth into frightening and uncharted climate territory
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/cosmos-explanation-of-earths-ice-ages-2014-5#ixzz3C9mXiMbf

Now go enjoy the beautiful interglacial period. You've only got about another 50,000 years. That is, if we don't throw it all out of wack with our greenhouse gas emissions.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/cosmos-explanation-of-earths-ice-ages-2014-5#ixzz3C9mHgS6E

The title is a bit stupid but beyond that is factual as to Milankovich influences and it acknolwedges anthro influence pointedly.
Best that this kind of article IS in Business Insider instead of the usual denier tripe ala Faux News.

 

[lomiller]

It's funny how some people can't read what is right there on the page. People believe the strangest things.

During a highly elliptical orbit, the Earth would receive 20 to 30% higher sunlight intensity between its closest and furthest passes by Earth, "resulting in a substantially different climate from what we experience today," according to NASA.
The pull of every celestial body combines to create Earth's eccentricity, wobble, and tilt. These movements determine how our planet is positioned to receive sunlight and how much sunlight it can receive. Which of these is the dominant determiner of ice ages, however, is still not completely understood.

What do you find strange about Milankovitch cycles and what does this have to do with either Sevensmark’s failed hypothesis or your claim cosmic rays influence sunlight?

Nothing says "skeptic" like deciding something is nonsense before you see it.

"Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out"

When a new theory purports to challenge a nearly universally accepted theory that explains many things and is supported by many lines of data skepticism is the appropriate response. Sevensmark’s hypothesis is not new, however it was implausible from the start as it depended on a physical mechanism that was questionable and didn’t fit the data. Subsequent work has outright rejected his notions but in true Wakefield form his followers surge ahead regardless.

 

[CapelDodger]

The title is a bit stupid but beyond that is factual as to Milankovich influences and it acknolwedges anthro influence pointedly.
Best that this kind of article IS in Business Insider instead of the usual denier tripe ala Faux News.

A straw in the wind, perhaps? There are intelligent people in business, much evidence to the contrary, and there are business pundits young enough to still have concern for their developing track-record. AGW is a real issue, we know it, they know it, and it presents both problems and opportunities. Those who get things right (or less wrong) will come up smiling, those who get things wrong through wishful-thinking and dogmatism will end up with stranded assets and fond memories of capital not so much sunk as scuppered.

 

[r-j]

When a new theory purports to challenge a nearly universally accepted theory that explains many things and is supported by many lines of data skepticism is the appropriate response. .

What is the "universally accepted theory" you are talking about?

Any evasion or refusal to answer will make it obvious there is either no theory, or you do not know it.

Here is a helpful link

 

[r-j]

Let me remind you of what happened the first time I asked.

Everyone notes that I stated the fact in the real world: there is no such thing as your "Theory of Global Warming" as you have actually shown with your searches.

It appears because people like you trot it out. It doesn't appear in the scientific literature.

There is no such thing as the "Theory of Global Warming" as you have actually found out!

So there can be no evasion, what is the theory that SS is talking about in this quote.

Sometimes people ask "what would it take to falsify the man-made global warming theory?". Well, basically it would require that our fundamental understanding of physics be wrong, because that's what the theory is based on.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture.html

 

[r-j]

businessinsider

Nothing wrong with the article...

Of course not. It's a well known fact that most scientists consider the cosmic cycles that change how and how much and when sunlight strikes the planet to be the major and only cause of climate change.

The article was talking about the show Cosmos, but instead of any discussion we get the usual nonsense and three laughing dogs.

Why a skeptic thinks using something that does not exist (the laughing dog) as a sign of derision, is beyond understanding.

 

[lomiller]

What is the "universally accepted theory" you are talking about?

The theory that greenhouse gases increase the time it takes for IR to exit the top of the atmosphere and therefore raise the temperature of a planet above its black body temperature and that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations therefore change planetary temperature.

Here is a helpful link

Do you really want to go through this particular humiliation again? You can’t just invent your own “theory” and claim it’s not accepted. Of course there is no universal acceptance of a theory you invented yourself based on your own inability to comprehend what you have read.

Now are you going to answer the question or not?

"What do you find strange about Milankovitch cycles and what does this have to do with either Sevensmark’s failed hypothesis or your claim cosmic rays influence sunlight?"

 

[lomiller]

Let me remind you of what happened the first time I asked.

No need. We remember your evasions, strawmen gish gallops and inability to read. This is really no different than you circling back now when you wish to avoid answering the questions have been asked.

Then as now you seem you seem unable to differentiate between:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory

4 . the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice:
"music theory."

And

1 . a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena:
"Einstein's theory of relativity."

and

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

 

[Reality Check]

Let me remind you of what happened the first time I asked.]

Let me remind you that the answer is still that the phrase "Theory of Global Warming" is not used in the scientific literature, r-j!

I will also remind you that quote mining is close to lying:

"Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out"

When a new theory purports to challenge a nearly universally accepted theory that explains many things and is supported by many lines of data skepticism is the appropriate response.

To make it clear:
* the scientific theory called "Theory of Global Warming" does not exist, r-j.
* a theory (note the small t ) that global warming is caused by our emissions of CO2 does exist with plenty of evidence to back it up, r-j.
* another theory (note the small t ) that global warming is caused by cosmic rays does exist with evidence that it is wrong, r-j.

 

[r-j]

Let me remind you that the answer is still that the phrase "Theory of Global Warming" is not used in the scientific literature, r-j!

More made up claims, not even worth responding to, just like that the last time. Of course not a shred of any evidence supports your claim.

Aug 17, 2014 - While global warming theory is consistent with record warm temperatures and more intense precipitation events, it does not directly explain ...

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n9/full/ngeo2234.html

Dec 9, 2012 - University of Chicago professor Raymond Pierrehumbert traced global warming theory back to its roots in the late nineteenth century during a ...

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/12/un-climate-talks-stumble-as-scientists-raise-alarm.html

Nor does it go against the grain of basic global warming theory.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/coldweather-2009.html

The link between increased atmospheric greenhouse gas and global temperatures underlies the theory of global warming, explained the authors.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=28449

“Since 1896, when Svante Arrhenius first postulated the theory of global warming due to carbon dioxide, control of carbon dioxide has been considered the most effective method of slowing warming,” Jacobson says in an interview. “Whereas carbon dioxide clearly causes most global warming, control of shorter-lived warming constituents, such as black carbon, should have a faster effect on slowing warming, which is the conclusion I have drawn from this study. "

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=22724

This module investigates climatic variability. It focuses on the evidence
for global climate change. It includes investigations of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), the geography and politics of stratospheric ozone, and the theory of global warming

http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/Mission_Geography/9-12/Module_3/III-3-1.pdf

The greenhouse warming theory found a lone advocate.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

The greenhouse effect theory was named and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was founded by the United Nations Environmental Programme and the World Meteorological Organization.

http://www.lenntech.com/greenhouse-effect/global-warming-history.htm